On September 22, the annual meeting of the United Nations begins in New York, with representatives from all 193 member countries in attendance. The agenda will include international peace, climate change, development, artificial intelligence, and restoring trust in multilateral institutions. However, beyond the carefully crafted speeches, the United States will once again take center stage in the conversation.
This should come as no surprise to anyone. Washington remains the world’s leading economic, military, and financial power, so every decision made by its government has far greater consequences than those made by any other capital. There are also those who accuse the United States of meddling in all international affairs, but they are the same people who forget that a nation with such power cannot turn a blind eye to its borders, its trade routes, its strategic resources, or the safety of its citizens.
The latest example of this is the case of Greenland. The agreement announced by President Donald Trump with Denmark—which aims to strengthen U.S. responsibility for the security of the island and the Arctic—has caused unease among several European governments. Some view it as a sign of arrogance, while others see it as evidence of Washington’s alleged expansionist ambitions. This judgment is hasty and, in some cases, self-serving.
Greenland occupies a military and geographic position of immense value, as it controls northern routes, is located near U.S. territory, and is part of a region where Russia and China are seeking to increase their presence. Faced with this reality, Trump is acting with the logic of a head of state who understands his obligations. If the U.S. government is responsible for defending its territory and its citizens, it has the right to demand clear, permanent, and practical agreements, rather than accepting diplomatic formulations that leave the door open to ambiguity.
Follo to El Mundo Miami in social media.
Greenlandic self-determination deserves respect, as does Danish sovereignty. Precisely for that reason, any agreement must recognize those authorities and avoid statements that relegate the local population to a secondary role. U.S. national defense, however, cannot be subordinated to the sensitivities of foreign governments that have depended on American protection for years while questioning its decisions.
Trump faces criticism because he speaks bluntly and because he does not cloak his priorities in the ceremonial language so favored in diplomatic circles. While other leaders issue statements, he demands results, border security, and favorable economic conditions for Americans. That policy may make allies uncomfortable, but it is not without merit.
The UN is discussing global conflicts, though it should also recognize that international stability depends, to a large extent, on the economic and military strength of the United States. Cooperation among nations is necessary, but cooperation does not oblige Washington to sacrifice its security or accept limits imposed by those who would not bear the cost of defending it.
In New York, there will be no shortage of complaints about U.S. influence. There will also be no shortage of governments that, behind the scenes, will seek its support. That contradiction sums up Washington’s true role. The United States does not need to apologize for protecting its borders, its interests, and its people. It needs to exercise that power with firmness, prudence, and respect for its allies.
Trump, for all his excesses, understands the cardinal rule better than many of his critics: national security cannot be delegated.
